October 24, 2014, 07:39:30 AM

Author Topic: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]  (Read 43568 times)

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2013, 06:50:28 AM »
Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.

Interestingly, with your friends setup, it's the lens which is the limiting factor there, not the camera. Very few lenses can match the IQ demands of a 35+ mp sensor.
A TS-e 17 will out resolve nearly every other wide lens and with its movements, one can cover an effective 12.5mm focal length if you are prepared to tripod, shift and stitch. It's certainly a nice technique for great panos.
The Nikkor 14-24 is good at shooting lens charts but not so useful shooting landscapes imho compared to a 16-35IIL. The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL. The extra 2mm at the wide end can usually be nixed by moving a little further back and it's a small benefit vs the problems fitting a polariser and ND filters are compared to the ease of a 16-35IIL.
In my opinion both the TS-e 17L and 16-35IIL are better landscape optics than the Nikkor 14-24....unless you liek to shoot brick walls or lens charts that is ;-D 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2013, 06:50:28 AM »

Tabor Warren Photography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • I want to go shoot something with a Canon...
    • View Profile
    • Tabor Warren Photography
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #121 on: October 05, 2013, 02:55:42 PM »
I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor
Bodies: 5D mk III x3, 5D mk. II, 7D, & 60D
Lenses: 17-40mm f/4L, 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, 70-200mm f/2.8L ISII, 85 f/1.2L II, & 100mm f/2.8L
Flashes: 600EX-RT x2, 430 EX II, and Godox PB960 x2 | To see my work head on over to http://photosbytabor.com

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 895
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #122 on: October 05, 2013, 04:10:18 PM »
Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

Ricku

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #123 on: October 05, 2013, 04:23:51 PM »
Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim
I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III. :)

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2013, 04:26:30 PM by Ricku »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4522
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2013, 08:17:57 AM »
Wow 16-50 F4 lame

 :(

Maybe if the 14-24 is good it will go OK with the sigma 24-70 f2 but I have zero interest in another f4 zoom unless its a super tele
APS-H Fanboy

dlleno

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #125 on: January 01, 2014, 01:28:22 PM »
It would be a worthy successor to the 17-40 to be sure.  Better zoom range  77mm, updated IS and optics.  But it would be a horrible  replacement for  the 16-35

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14740
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #126 on: January 01, 2014, 01:48:30 PM »
I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

No validity.  Best Buy is a notoriously poor prognosticator.  They discontinue lots of things, only to add them back later.  Has happened a few times at B&H recently, too.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #126 on: January 01, 2014, 01:48:30 PM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #127 on: January 01, 2014, 06:32:39 PM »
Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim
I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III. :)

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.










Ricku

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #128 on: January 10, 2014, 02:18:32 AM »
^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 02:20:06 AM by Ricku »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #129 on: January 10, 2014, 05:15:18 AM »
^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\

So you think those things you listed will make a great image any more sellable? No it won't...so I would say that the metric by which you judge a lens is way off base...and I'm sure that Canon are in no hurry to replace it becuase it's still selling well.
The sun star image would be hard to do with a 14-24mm lens...sure it might be sharper....although at f16 I seriously doubt there will be much difference in sharpness. The front element on the 14-24 is so bulbous that it's very flare prone. The 16-35IIL is very good at handling flare, far beter that the new 24-70IIL which every one seems to rave about.
The same is true with the lower image of the light house. The 14-24mm is hard to use filters (not impossible, but a PITA) and the flare issue is a serious concearn to a landscape photographer....but of corse if your only metric is wide open sharpness then yes the 14-24mm is a great lens too.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #130 on: January 10, 2014, 09:44:49 AM »
Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.
+1 and while in the minority, it's kind of sad to see people on here over the last few days writing off the 16-35 II, 50 1.2, and other "weak" lenses.  If these people actually got out there and shot with the lenses, they'd realize that lens charts and resolution tests are just part of the picture.

When it comes to sharp enough, I shot a whole campaign for a client with the "soft" Sigma 12-24 II I used to own and yet I was still able to print (cropped) photos at 40x60" for them with no problems.  The 16-35II could be better, but that doesn't mean it sucks.  Photographers will always be limited by their creativity and skills, not their equipment.  If you don't believe me, just wait for the inevitable posts by people claiming their Otus 55mm is soft - the same people who "only shoot handheld" ;D

Woody

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #131 on: January 10, 2014, 07:13:49 PM »
The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL.

This is why I will NEVER EVER buy lenses with bulbous front elements.

People often forget that landscape photographers almost always need to stop down.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2574
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #132 on: January 10, 2014, 07:20:49 PM »
The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #132 on: January 10, 2014, 07:20:49 PM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #133 on: January 10, 2014, 08:19:17 PM »
The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.

The TS-E 17L does attract more flare and ghosting in direct sunlight than the 16-35IIL. The new Nano coating helps a lot, but it's a big element and it's hard to shade.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #134 on: January 13, 2014, 09:35:53 AM »
I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #134 on: January 13, 2014, 09:35:53 AM »